Principles of Natural Justice were Complied, not inclined to Exercise Discretionary Jurisdiction: Madras HC Directs to approach Appellate Authority [Read Order]
The court declined exercise discretionary jurisdiction but allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the original period of limitation
Madras High Court – Madras HC – Principles of Natural Justice – Discretionary jurisdiction refusal – Indian judiciary and natural justice – Taxscan
Madras High Court – Madras HC – Principles of Natural Justice – Discretionary jurisdiction refusal – Indian judiciary and natural justice – Taxscan
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as the remedy to approach appellate authority was available. It observed that the principles of natural justice were sufficiently complied.
The petitioner, M/s Richards & John Wesley Engineers Pvt Ltd engaged within the wholesale trade and distribution sector, specialising in electrical goods. Following an audit, an audit report dated 09.12.2022 was generated, prompting objections from the petitioner.
Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 11.09.2023 was served, to which the petitioner responded by 17.10.2023. Following a personal hearing on 20.10.2023, the contested order was issued on 28.12.2023.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the order is flawed due to the failure to provide audit observations beforehand, thereby denying the opportunity to respond adequately. Additionally, concerns are raised regarding the absence of document identification numbers in the audit report and the alleged oversight of petitioner's response and annexed documents concerning GST payment on fixed asset sales and incorrect Input Tax Credit.
Mr. B. Ramanakumar, representing the respondents, asserts that the petitioner participated in the proceedings leading to the impugned order without raising objections to the audit report. He contended that it is now inappropriate for the petitioner to challenge the audit's validity. Furthermore, he highlights the petitioner's failure to utilise statutory remedies against the order within the given timeframe.
Considering the submission, the court observed that the petitioner was duly notified before the audit and submitted various documents in response. The impugned order indicated provision of a personal hearing and addresses six specific issues, dropping tax proposals for four upon consideration of the petitioner's response. However, for the remaining issues, tax proposals were confirmed, and the petitioner was reminded of the available appellate remedy.
In light of these circumstances, the bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction but allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the original period of limitation.
The court emphasised that the petitioner remains within the condonable period, granting a ten-day window to present the appeal. The appellate authority is instructed to assess the appeal on its merits without considering questions of limitation. No costs are imposed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
